[부당이득금징수처분취소][미간행]
Plaintiff (Law Firm PP, Attorneys Choi Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
National Health Insurance Corporation (Attorney Lee Chang-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellee)
May 18, 2011
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap36491 Decided August 27, 2010
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s disposition of collecting unjust enrichment of KRW 79,935,010 against the Plaintiff on August 27, 2009, which exceeded KRW 1,723,455, out of the disposition of collecting unjust enrichment of KRW 79,935
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
1. cite the judgment of the first instance;
The reasons why this Court is used in relation to this case are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the argument that the defendant made in the trial as set forth in the following 2. The reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance are as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the
2. Additional determination
A. Defendant’s assertion
Article 33(1)4 of the Medical Service Act provides that “as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, family nursing is provided for one of the reasons for a medical service outside a medical institution.” Article 24 of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act provides that “The family nursing service shall be provided only to a person who requests the medical care or management of a specialized home nurse as a doctor or an oriental medical doctor deems it necessary to continue medical treatment and management at a place other than a medical institution.” In addition, the instant notice provides that “The scope of a person eligible for the medical care benefits for home nursing is limited to the case where the medical doctor (including the oriental medical doctor) deems it necessary for home nursing after determining the scope of the person eligible for the medical care benefits for home nursing.”
B. Determination
As the family nursing constitutes an exception to the face-to-face medical treatment or the principle of internal medical treatment under the Medical Service Act, it is so reasonable and strict in interpreting the applicable requirements. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the family nursing of this case did not meet the requirements prescribed in the Medical Service Act or the public notice of this case.
Rather, according to each of the 18 and 19 evidence 1 through 207, Gap 28, 31, and 32 evidence 1 and 2, all of the patients of this case suffered from chronic diseases, such as high blood pressure, urology, cancer, and dementia, and 9 of them were discharged after hospitalization. The plaintiff, a doctor, requested the medical care or management of a family specialized nurse, considering that the patients of this case need hospitalization and that continuous medical treatment and management are necessary. The defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)